DUST Search - Some of best players on here have a strange way of thinking.

Tiel Syysch wrote:

Zekain Kade wrote:

what you're describing is a super simplified encounter where both players are standing 10 feet from one another. Neither of them are moving, and they both fire at the exact same time. which just isn't realistic for a game like this. This is also the type of mind set that my OP talks about.

Good players trying to justify reasons why they should be able to kill more, and die less for the gear they use.

Sure, it would make sense in a game like halo 4 where the DMR dominates every other starter weapon in the game. It has a greater impact because everyone has the same health. But in this game, it's different.

He was the one describing it in that way, that's why I built the example around that kind of scenario. I don't assume people are just gonna stand there and face each other holding R1 til someone dies, which is why I think the one or zero bullets less to kill for upgrading a weapon isn't significant. That 1 bullet of killing power is rarely a deciding factor when you take into account people moving around and aiming inaccuracy.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goat of Dover Shadow Company HQ 161	Posted - 2013.01.13 02:06:00 - [1] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto. So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear. Because that makes sense, apparently. Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade. People are complaining because there's no sense of character progression when there's no benefit to using anything "better." There is though its called a "tie breaker". Sorry if that is spelled wrong.
Goat of Dover Shadow Company HQ 161	Posted - 2013.01.13 02:12:00 - [2] - Quote What are you sacking on your fit to put that better weapon on there. See you are referencing to just proto weapons. I mean the proto tier all the way around. People just sticking proto weapons on the suit they can barely fit it on and expect to do something. What is the point in the weapon if you cant defend it. Also in a even match one or two bullets means your dead and I am not.
Goat of Dover Shadow Company HQ 161	Posted - 2013.01.13 04:28:00 - [3] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto. even 0,5% is a reason to upgrade. Provided you have the PG and CPU, of course... No it doesn't, not if it leads to you doubling the cost of your fit for no kill advantage. Do I need to bring out my bullets-to-kill spreadsheet again and get another thread locked? To everyone who missed the point of my response earlier, I made the mistake of saying "gear" when I was talking mainly about "weapons." Though, upgrading things like a shield extender for half a bullet of survivability is arguably useless as well. Sorry Tiel I still disagree if the match is balanced in skill and I have more life and kill you in one more bullet of damage than you do in so much time then I will kill you and have more life. That is what I specced for to kill you first and to have just a little bit more life than I would have. I am also looking at it a little bit different than I was before now to. I am running a scout with the AR right now because it is almost free. I am also running armor instead of shields so I can put damage mods into my highs when I have more than one. lol. So for me to kill you in one more bullet than I did before is really important to me, I barely have life as it is so the quicker you go down the better. This is my whole theory behind this the quicker you go down and the more life I have at the end of the gun fight the better and I will pay that extra money, PG, and CPU for that to happen. All for that little bit of an edge, people will do a lot to just be a little bit better because that is all you need to win.
Goat of Dover Shadow Company HQ 161	Posted - 2013.01.14 01:44:00 - [4] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: what you're describing is a super simplified encounter where both players are standing 10 feet from one another. Neither of them are moving, and they both fire at the exact same time. which just isn't realistic for a game like this. This is also the type of mind set that my OP talks about. Good players trying to justify reasons why they should be able to kill more, and die less for the gear they use. Sure, it would make sense in a game like halo 4 where the DMR dominates every other starter weapon in the game. It has a greater impact because everyone has the same health. But in this game, it's different. He was the one describing it in that way, that's why I built the example around that kind of scenario. I don't assume people are just gonna stand there and face each other holding R1 til someone dies, which is why I think the one or zero bullets less to kill for upgrading a weapon isn't significant. That 1 bullet of killing power is rarely a deciding factor when you take into account people moving around and aiming inaccuracy. Yes, Kade I was the one who set up the scenario but, it was a trap for Tiel. Although it took your post for him to bite. Will go into that in a min. Yes three complex damage mods are not going to work I have already figured that out and, was making adjustments to my plan to best optimize my fit around that. Now on to the trap. Tiel's spread sheet thread was created after there was a good long thread about the damage between tiers. In this original thread I posted what I felt was right about damage between the tiers, with hit probability taking movement and inaccuracy into account along with skills to decrease dispersion for the AR(Since this was the weapon that the thread was focused on). Tiel made a response telling me that taking this into account was wrong and should not be applied when looking at the damage between tiers. Yet in his last post he states that people holding still is not what is going to happen and that one bullet is not enough to decide in that kinda battle. What will decide in that kinda battle though is the weapons accuracy, range, bullet spread(which with better accuracy will get better as you skill into the AR), and these things all get better as you go up in the weapon tiers. These are the deciding factor when it is weapon to weapon. That is why I feel that the weapons damage difference is good because in a fight damage between tiers is not all that is to be taken into account because, that one bullet becomes better as the fight gets wilder due to the higher tier being better all around. Again though this is still a skill equal match. With the difference in damage now though someone with a situational advantage and a worse weapon should win as long as his skill is good enough to take advantage of the this situation. So to tie into Kade the better geared guy should not be complaining because he lost to a guy with a worse gun but should chalk it up to that guy got him fair and square and move on. P.S. sorry about the late post I haven't been on here all day.